Apology to Oaktree and correction of some points

In the most recent issue of Woroni I had an article published entitled ‘make ignorance history’ that criticised the Oaktree Foundation on the following grounds:

1.       They do not adequately engage in the education of their members and the general public about the complexities of development and the problems with aid, especially aid for development.

2.       The policies they advocate for, in particular aid for development, are the subject of heavy and sustained criticism in the academic literature on development and yet the organisation does not seem to care.

3.        ‘Raising awareness’ is such an exceedingly superficial notion that its promotion over more rigorous possibilities amounts to a ‘throwing away’ of all the enthusiasm and energy that youth plough into the organisation.

I have since been contacted by a member of the organisation who informs me that my claims are simply not true and has criticised me for not engaging with the Oaktree Foundation before publishing said claims. I must accept this criticism, as I did indeed fail to engage with the organisation, or do much research at all for the article. I apologise to the Oaktree Foundation for my misleading comments.

I have since spoken to a half dozen current and former members of Oaktree and spent time stalking them on the internet and on their website. I have discovered that Oaktree does take the time to educate its members about development, principally at the national conference. While Oaktree’s campaigns, such as live below the line, do not include an educative element, those inside the organisation are given access to lectures and information from experts. I am not precisely sure of how many people are sufficiently inside the organisation to make use of these resources. The Oaktree website suggests the organisation boasts 120000+ members, but the conference only hosts 180 people. Half of the people with experience of the organisation had been exposed to educative material by it, while the other three hadn’t. Levels of exposure tended to track the level of involvement with the organisation, which I suppose is to be expected. The first contact or outreach aspects of the organisation do not focus on education but on inspiration and activism. Fair enough. 

I have also learned that Oaktree does engage with experts, though again, largely at the executive level. That is to say, Oaktree meets with AusAID, academics and others to flesh out its advocacy platform. This is commendable and I am very glad to hear it. I also think it is perfectly fair for Oaktree to campaign on an expert message rather than trying to organically decide on a message itself. I would personally prefer it if the organisation did put much more effort into organically generating a policy platform—as that would involve studying and thinking deeply about development issues—rather than expending the majority of its energy on campaign formulation. But that is a question of opinion, and Oaktree are more than entitled to theirs. Perhaps more importantly, I am not the one creating an increasingly monolithic organisation to see my approach realised, so I’m not really entitled to criticise Oaktree for doing something when I am doing nothing (besides educating myself and maybe a few of my friends).

I would like to note though, that given this expert engagement occurs at the executive level, I think this is, in some sense, evidence for the claims of individuals like Daniel Rose that Oaktree operates a pyramid like structure where those at the top get exposure to a whole lot of amazing resume and skill enhancing opportunities while the rank and file make token gestures to shed their middle class guilt. And that was frankly what I was complaining about. Not that oaktree is a resume builder or a pyramid organisation (I don’t particularly care) but that the people who get involved in its ‘grassroots campaigns’—the rank and file—don’t really learn anything about the complexity of aid and development and that Oaktree is thus wasting energy and enthusiasm that could be channelled into greater development literacy, rather than just poverty ‘awareness’.

In the complex modern policy environment the greatest tool for effecting change is literacy of the issue, as it is only literacy and knowledge that can lead to outstanding policy. For example, there is a great deal of enthusiasm globally for climate change action at the moment but the process is heavily hamstrung by the absence of well thought out, efficacious policy and an understanding of how to get such policy through the institutional and stakeholder maze that is required for it to be realised. This situation is repeated for almost all policy matters at different levels of society and with varying degrees of complexity.

It is because of this context that I have always advocated for a slow, well researched, well thought-out, calm, reasoned approach to policy and change. Too much of our policy setting (such as in organ donation, on which I did my honours thesis) is impaired by an insufficiently informed polity that is also insufficiently motivated to become informed. I believe, therefore, that a big part of the role of the intelligentsia and NGOs like Oaktree is to provide the citizenry with information that is easily accessible, easily digestible, and, most importantly, of an exceedingly high quality. After my research my impression is still that Oaktree does not do this very much at all, at least not for its rank and file.

One of the concerns people have with my article is that it will discourage people from joining ‘activist’ organisations. I certainly hope it does, but I hope it will not discourage people from taking development seriously (quite the opposite actually—less activism, more study). I do not think that in the modern Australian policy setting environment that activism is an effective application of energy, at least not as ‘activism’ is traditionally conceived (rallies for example).

I think it is a fair to say that the enthusiasm and energy Oaktree and other similar organisations generate is wonderful and uplifting. But this energy and enthusiasm is gone in a puff of smoke after a week living below the line and a weekend at a Make Poverty History concert. I would prefer it if, collectively, the youth of Australia focussed on internalising the kind of energy and enthusiasm on show at Oaktree events and using it in a ‘slow burn’ manner to keep themselves motivated over the decades of their adult lives to put in the effort required to see grand and effective policy realised.

I think there is a very valid argument to be made that people have their pet interests but care about other things as well. With the ‘other things’ they don’t have the time or energy to do the research, so they trust others for whom that is their ‘pet interest’ to do the research and then they voice their support through activities like fundraisers and other small things. Oaktree seems to fit this quite well. The executives and other linchpin members are those for whom development is a pet interest while the rank and file are just people that care and want to show some support.  At this moment in time I will need to think more about this argument. I think there are not enough Australians with pet interests and too many who think token gestures constitute a pet interest. But I am also sensitive to the difficulties involved in getting young Australians to do anything, so I am undecided on this matter in regards to Oaktree and other similar organisations.  

Perhaps I may be permitted to offer some constructive criticism. Oaktree has links with DevPolicy at the ANU, with other aid and development NGOs, and with AusAID. Why not include web-links to them on the Oaktree website? Links could also be included to other easy to access academic resources on development, such as the website of Esther Duflo’s group, the East Asia Forum, articles and chapters by individuals like Stiglitz, Moyo and Sachs, and the UNHCR (and other UN arms) website. There are plenty of interesting Ted Talks on development and aid from both the pro and anti perspective that could be linked to. I think it would also be quite easy to have a page where all the different undergraduate (and potentially postgraduate) courses on development available at Australian universities are listed. I was a little surprised to discover that of the 6 people I spoke to about Oaktree only 1 had done development and change at the ANU (another had done an entire degree on development). Perhaps the problem is a lack of awareness around the potential options for the study of development issues. Live below the line could come with an information pack, and copies of said pack could be available at all Oaktree events.  

To close, I must re-emphasise that my article was misleading and ill informed. I apologise unqualifiedly to Oaktree. I like writing articles and sometimes I jump the gun, which was easy to do in this case as Daniel Rose had written an extremely vitriolic attack on Oaktree in the previous issue and I was inclined to try and get the debate away from whether Oaktree are a pack of bourgeois wankers and onto how best to see development realised. Unfortunately, I also wanted to write something journalistic and so my piece became overly aggressive in tone and critical in content. I must also admit to modifying my original arguments in the above, but after my research I maintain that the sentiments of my original article remain valid. However, I don’t think it is fair for me to criticise Oaktree on these grounds. The organisation is an erstwhile and valuable initiative. Rather, I hope my arguments can be read as comments on the role of youth in policy setting and how best they can contribute.